1. The winner of the Grammy Award for Album of the Year can look forward to a huge increase in album sales along with their trophy. A look back at winners over the last decade shows that results vary.
Photo: Jason Merritt/Getty Images

    The winner of the Grammy Award for Album of the Year can look forward to a huge increase in album sales along with their trophy. A look back at winners over the last decade shows that results vary.

    Photo: Jason Merritt/Getty Images

  2. Spend Grammy night staring at screens with us! Whether we’re marveling at Taylor Swift’s capacity for surprise or trying to figure out what to type during the combined 37 minutes of Bruno Mars performances, we’ll be here to serve your reading-along needs. So keep one eye on a TV, one eye on your Twitter feed with NPR Music critic @annkpowers and one eye on our live blog, and you won’t miss a thing.
Photo: Jason Merritt/Getty Images

    Spend Grammy night staring at screens with us! Whether we’re marveling at Taylor Swift’s capacity for surprise or trying to figure out what to type during the combined 37 minutes of Bruno Mars performances, we’ll be here to serve your reading-along needs. So keep one eye on a TV, one eye on your Twitter feed with NPR Music critic @annkpowers and one eye on our live blog, and you won’t miss a thing.

    Photo: Jason Merritt/Getty Images

  3. In a just world, given their cultural dominance and all-around excellence, [Carly Rae] Jepsen’s summer smash would take the Song statue, and Record would go to either Clarkson’s sharp chart-topper or the undeniable Gotye record. But much like a Best Picture Oscar nominee with no Best Director nod to match, you can tell by these nominees who’s doomed.

    — Chris Molanphy thinks this is the last time we’re likely to feel charitable toward the Grammys for a while

  4. Everyone hated it, but everyone watched it. That seems to be the takeaway from this year’s Grammy Awards telecast. Top critics called the program discordant, bloated and full of fumbles. The Internet belched in frustration as the Foo Fighters (nice guys, but overplayed) and Chris Brown (problematic, to say the least) made multiple appearances. Yet people tuned in — boy, did they tune in — and kept watching all the way through the Paul McCartney-led five-man effort to resuscitate rock that was the finale.

    So what gives? Are we who tune in to these entertainment industry beauty pageants simply connoisseurs of television-induced torture? Or was there a way in which the 2012 Grammys show worked, despite (or even because of) the weird combo numbers, the stretches of incoherent spectacle and the dearth of awards presented?

    Here’s what I think: the difference lay in the devices viewers cradled in hand or lap.

    —Ann Powers on last night’s Grammy Awards telecast